PAT RAM Vs. GRAM SABHA DIGROTA

JUDGEMENT

(1.) Respondent Nos. l and 2, namely, Gram Sabha and Gram Panchayat of village Digrota, had filed a suit giving rise to this appeal for a declaration that they were owners and in possession of the suit land measuring 106 Kanals 12 Marlas and the order dated 7th September, 1967 passed by the Deputy Commissioner, Mohindergarh, under section 42 of the East Punjab Holdings (Consolidation and Prevention of Fragmentation) Act, 1948 (for short the Act) was null and void, without jurisdiction and based upon fraud. According to the allegations in the plaint, the plaintiffs were owners of the suit land. Hanuman, defendant No. 3, who is brother of the remaining defendants, filed an application under section 42 of the Act before the Deputy Commissioner on 5th July 1967, who decided it in favour of the defendants vide order dated 7th September, 1967. No notice of that application was given to the plaintiff's. The Sarpanch did not appear before the Deputy Commissioner on 7th Septenmber, 1967, nor admitted the claim of the defendant. Moreover, the Sarpanch nor the Gram Panchayat had any right to give away the land of the Panchayat. The said application had been filed by the Hanuman beyond limitation. Pat Ram, one of the defendants, at the relevant time was posted as Patwari in the Consolidation Department and in collusion with the other officers of that department, he got the said order passed. On the basis of that wrong order, mutation about change of ownership was sanctioned in favour of the defendants. The plaintiffs came to know of those proceedings when in June, 1968 the defendants filed a suit for permanent injunction. It was further prayed that in case the defendants were found in possession then a decree for possession of the land be passed in favour of the plaintiffs.

(2.) The suit was contested by defendant Nos. 1 to 4 and 7. They pleaded that they were in possession of the suit land which had been given to them under the above referred order dated 7th September, 1967 passed by the Deputy Commissioner. The validity of the order was defended. The other allegations of the plaintiffs were also denied. They took up other objections also but it is not necessary to refer to them.

(3.) Upon the allegations of the parties the learned trial Court framed as many as 13 issues. It is not necessary to reproduce them as only issue Nos. 6 and 12-A were agitated before me. Those issues read as follows :-